IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zbw/espost/213003.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gaze bias differences capture individual choice behaviour

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas, Armin W.
  • Molter, Felix
  • Krajbich, Ian
  • Heekeren, Hauke R.
  • Mohr, Peter N. C.

Abstract

How do we make simple consumer choices (e.g., deciding between an apple, an orange, and a banana)? Recent empirical evidence suggests a close link between choice behavior and eye movements at the group level, with generally higher choice probabilities for items that were looked at longer during the decision process. However, it is unclear how variable this effect is across individuals. Here, we investigate this question in a multialternative forced-choice experiment using a novel computational model that can be easily applied to the individual participant level. We show that a link between gaze and choice is present for most individuals, but differs considerably in strength, namely, the choices of some individuals are almost independent of gaze allocation, while the choices of others are strongly associated with gaze behavior. Accounting for this variability in our model allows us to explain and accurately predict individual differences in observed choice behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas, Armin W. & Molter, Felix & Krajbich, Ian & Heekeren, Hauke R. & Mohr, Peter N. C., 2019. "Gaze bias differences capture individual choice behaviour," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 3(6), pages 625-635.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:espost:213003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/213003/1/Full-text-article-Thomas-et-al-Gaze-bias-differences.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Basten U & Biele G. P. & Heekeren H. R. & Fiebach, 2010. "How the brain integrates costs and benefits during decision making," SFB 649 Discussion Papers SFB649DP2010-063, Sonderforschungsbereich 649, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany.
    2. Avinash R. Vaidya & Lesley K. Fellows, 2015. "Testing necessary regional frontal contributions to value assessment and fixation-based updating," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 6(1), pages 1-12, December.
    3. Mohr, Peter N. C. & Heekeren, Hauke R. & Rieskamp, Jörg, 2017. "Attraction Effect in Risky Choice Can Be Explained by Subjective Distance Between Choice Alternatives," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 7, pages 1-10.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i::p:396-403 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Frederick Callaway & Antonio Rangel & Thomas L Griffiths, 2021. "Fixation patterns in simple choice reflect optimal information sampling," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(3), pages 1-29, March.
    2. Fischbacher, Urs & Hausfeld, Jan & Renerte, Baiba, 2022. "Strategic incentives undermine gaze as a signal of prosocial motives," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 63-91.
    3. Moshe Glickman & Orian Sharoni & Dino J Levy & Ernst Niebur & Veit Stuphorn & Marius Usher, 2019. "The formation of preference in risky choice," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-25, August.
    4. Zhao, Meina & Wang, Xuqi, 2021. "Perception value of product-service systems: Neural effects of service experience and customer knowledge," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cary Frydman & Nicholas Barberis & Colin Camerer & Peter Bossaerts & Antonio Rangel, 2012. "Using Neural Data to Test a Theory of Investor Behavior: An Application to Realization Utility," NBER Working Papers 18562, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Li, Feng & Du, Timon C. & Wei, Ying, 2020. "Enhancing supply chain decisions with consumers’ behavioral factors: An illustration of decoy effect," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    3. Stephanie M. Smith & Ian Krajbich & Ryan Webb, 2019. "Estimating the dynamic role of attention via random utility," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 97-111, August.
    4. Ryan Webb & Paul W. Glimcher & Kenway Louie, 2021. "The Normalization of Consumer Valuations: Context-Dependent Preferences from Neurobiological Constraints," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(1), pages 93-125, January.
    5. Ian Krajbich & Todd Hare & Björn Bartling & Yosuke Morishima & Ernst Fehr, 2015. "A Common Mechanism Underlying Food Choice and Social Decisions," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-24, October.
    6. Molter, Felix & Thomas, Armin W. & Heekeren, Hauke R. & Mohr, Peter N. C., 2019. "GLAMbox: A Python toolbox for investigating the association between gaze allocation and decision behaviour," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 14(12), pages 1-23.
    7. Filip Gesiarz & Donal Cahill & Tali Sharot, 2019. "Evidence accumulation is biased by motivation: A computational account," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-15, June.
    8. Liz Izakson & Yoav Zeevi & Dino J Levy, 2020. "Attraction to similar options: The Gestalt law of proximity is related to the attraction effect," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-21, October.
    9. Im, Changkuk & Lee, Jinkwon, 2022. "On the fragility of third-party punishment: The context effect of a dominated risky investment option," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    10. Ernst Fehr & Antonio Rangel, 2011. "Neuroeconomic Foundations of Economic Choice--Recent Advances," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(4), pages 3-30, Fall.
    11. Daniel Serra, 2021. "Decision-making: from neuroscience to neuroeconomics—an overview," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 91(1), pages 1-80, July.
    12. Vriens, M. & Vidden, C. & Schomaker, J., 2020. "What I see is what I want: Top-down attention biasing choice behavior," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 262-269.
    13. Ryan Webb, 2019. "The (Neural) Dynamics of Stochastic Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(1), pages 230-255, January.
    14. Clithero, John A., 2018. "Response times in economics: Looking through the lens of sequential sampling models," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 61-86.
    15. Mads Lund Pedersen & Tor Endestad & Guido Biele, 2015. "Evidence Accumulation and Choice Maintenance Are Dissociated in Human Perceptual Decision Making," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-20, October.
    16. Tobias Otto & Fred R H Zijlstra & Rainer Goebel, 2018. "Feeling the force: Changes in a left-lateralized network of brain areas under simulated workday conditions are reflected in subjective mental effort investment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-21, June.
    17. Clithero, John A., 2018. "Improving out-of-sample predictions using response times and a model of the decision process," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 344-375.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:espost:213003. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zbwkide.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.